Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and
liftest up thy voice for understanding; If thou seekest her as silver, and
searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear
of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God
--Prov. 2:3-5, KJV.

Recently many discussions (mostly between
scientists and theologians and even among scientists and fellow scientists)
have focused on how the reports in Gen. 1:1ff will or will not contradict
actual scientific realms. They begin with the evolution theories and lead to
the cosmological theories of the big bang. The point I would like to make here
includes aspects of the interpretations of quantum physics. As we will see,
these aspects could make the other discussions superfluous. Indeed, this
interpretation of reality seems to be foreseen in the Bible and supports a
transcendent Creator. The Bible seems compatible with quantum physics and even
leads to a new kind of anthropic principle: the Divine Anthropic Principle.
God seems not only to be a mathematician, as some say; he also seems to be a
quantum physicist.

Quantum Physics in a Nutshell

Most
physicists agree that quantum physics is one of the most important physical
theories in history, even more important than Einstein's theory of relativity.
And the latest results of experiments in the field of quantum physics seem to
solidify this view. Let us say in advance that up to now there is not one single
phenomenon which contradicts this theory. This is unique in physics. Even the
strange results of the subsequent, described experiments are fully predicted by
quantum mechanics!

Physics normally makes a distinction
between an observable phenomenon (e.g., an apple falls from a tree) and its
mathematical description by the observer (e.g., s=½gt2). The
assumptions and formulas are called a "model." Such a model is called
"good," if it can make predictions that can be verified by
experiments. If such a model fulfills certain criteria, such as simplicity (in a
mathematical sense) and consistency with the observed world, physicists then
accept it.

With quantum physics, however, a new
problem has risen within physics. It concerns the distinction between the
observer and the observed phenomenon. The formula s=½gt2, which
describes the distance "s" performed by the falling apple during the
time span "t" (where g = 9.81m/s2), is used by the observer,
and the influence of the observer in relation to this phenomenon can be
neglected. But if a physicist tries to observe very small elementary particles
such as electrons or photons (light particles), this influence can no longer be
neglected. In fact, this influence usually is so big that it will destroy the
measured results.

For example, consider the following
problem. To measure the locality of an electron and its speed (actually its
impulse, to be more specific) at a certain time, we can try to "look"
at the electron with light. But a photon shot at the electron to determine its
location and speed will alter the position and the actual speed of the electron
in such a way that its former simultaneous location and speed can never again be
precisely reconstructed. As shown by the German physicist, Werner Heisenberg in
1927, this is not a question of how "good" your measuring equipment
is; it is a fundamental law called the "Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle." So the position and speed of an electron (and any other
elementary particle) can simultaneously be determined only within a boundary
of uncertainty. In general, impulse and locality cannot be measured with
arbitrary accuracy at one time. There is a fundamental lower limit.

Yet, consider that our whole universe is
made out of such elementary particles. Another problem is that the border
between the observer and the observed object is not fixated.
If a photon "observes" an object, who observes the photon? If this is
a human eye, who observes the human eye? Is it the nerve skein connected with
the eye? At the end of the nerve, is it a brain cell? So, who is last
in this chain of observers? Which "entity" is aware of all this? Where
is this entity located?

The problem of "who observes
whom" is crucial. On the other hand, if a system is not observed, it is
also "undisturbed" and behaves in a different way. This can be seen
within the Wave-Particle Dualism. Every elementary particle (remember, all
matter in the universe is made out of such particles) behaves either as a wave
or particle, depending on the equipment used to "observe" it. For
example, under certain circumstances, a photon behaves as a wave. Everyone can
see the "color" of light. This can easily be interpreted as the
frequencies of light waves. On the other hand, light is also able to "shoot
out" electrons onto certain metal surfaces (e.g., photo cells). But only
(light) particles, capable of enough energy, are able to do this. (Einstein won
his Nobel Prize for this discovery.) So, what is light (and all matter)? The
question here is, "Is light made up of waves or particles?" The answer
is, "Neither." As long as light is not observed, it is a kind of
unification of both called a quantum system (no one knows what it
really looks like, because we just assume it is not observed). Only when
and as we observe it, does it "behave" either as a wave or as a
particle, depending on the measuring equipment used. The same is also true for
our former "unobserved" electron. As long as no one "looks"
at it, it is a quantum system with no certain location and impulse at one time.
Yet, if we look at it, we can only find out either its exact location or
its exact impulse, but not both exact values at the same time.

Let it be noted that mathematically
the quantum system is precisely described through the solutions of the so-called
"Schrödinger equation"; the corresponding solutions (called
"wave-functions") are a superposition of all possible outcomes. If the
so-called quantum system is "disturbed," e.g., by observation, then
the wave-function "collapses" and one of the former possible outcomes
becomes the solution of the Schrödinger equation (that is what we call
"reality").

Thus, the problem can also be described as
follows: What we normally call "reality" is the result of collapsed
wave-functions. The question is, "What kind of 'reality' corresponds to the
'un-collapsed' wave-functions, that is, how 'real' is a physical state described
by the superposition of possible 'realities'?" Therefore this
(un-collapsed) "reality" is an abstract notion with no concrete
meaning.

In the example of the observation of an
electron, we can reduce the interpretation of this behavior to two viewpoints:

a. There
is (in reality) a definite location and an impulse below the Heisenberg
uncertainty limit, but we cannot measure them simultaneously.

b. There is simply no
location and impulse below the Heisenberg uncertainty limit (or, in other words,
there is no reality for the electron's impulse and location below this limit;
its reality is created only during its observation).

In other words, according to (a) there
really is a world "out there," independent of the fact that we
are observing it, while according to (b) the interpretation is that there is no
reality "out there" (at least it makes no sense to talk about it)
as long as we do not observe it (that is, reality is "created" during
the process of observation). The latter is also well known as the
"Copenhagen Interpretation" given by Niels Bohr in the 1920s.

Although it seems a little far-fetched to
say that reality only exists while observed, many scientists tried to conceive
experiments, whose results would lead to a clear decision between the two
interpretations. Two major experiments, one performed by Alain Aspect during the
1980s1and
one by Marlan Scully and his research team in the early 1990s2gave results even more staggering than expected. Both experiments have to
do with the Wave-Particle Dualism of a photon. I want to give a rough overview
here of the Scully experiment, to show how important its results are.

A light beam enters a crystal, which
divides every photon into two so-called "twin photons" with lower
intensity (see Fig. 1). The twin photons are directed in separate directions,
each of them reflected by a mirror and later "united" by a
semi-transparent mirror (50% of the photons can pass through, the other 50% are
completely reflected and therefore cannot pass through). Behind this mirror are
two detectors that can register each photon.

Scully's arrangement of the components is
made so that the twin photons unite in a way that at one time, one twin photon
is reflected and the other one passes through the semi-transparent mirror or
vice versa. In either case, as a result, a reunited, "whole" photon
(with the original intensity) is detected either at the upper or lower detector.
This represents the "wave-behavior" of photons and the effect is
called "interference."

Next, Scully and his team were interested
in finding out which way each of the two twin photons went before they were
reunited at the semi-transparent mirror. So they "marked" one of the
twin photons with a so-called polarization filter, an optical device that
slightly "twists" the photon beam. In doing so, the photons
"feel" observed and thus their wave-behavior is destroyed. Suddenly,
Scully and his team detected not only "united" photons, but also
"single" twin photons at the upper and the lower detector at the same
time (see Fig. 2).

But what happens if two other polarization
filters are set up directly in front of the detectors, which are adjusted in
such a way that "behind them" the information of which photon is
marked (that is, polarized) is deleted? (See Fig. 3).

Here is the amazing result. Since the
information has been destroyed (concerning which photon went which
way), the photons no longer "feel" observed and, therefore, as in the
"undisturbed" experiment (without any polarization filters), only
"reunited twin photons" are detected, either at the upper or
lower detector. So, the twin photons unite again at the semi-transparent mirror
in such a way that either the one twin photon is reflected and the other one
passes through or vice versa.

But wait a minute. How could the two twin
photons know that behind the semi-transparent mirror (this means later
in time) a device is waiting that destroys the information of the first
polarization filter and that for this reason the twin photons reunite at the
semi-transparent mirror? Can the photons foresee the future? Or does our
measurement (that is, observation) influence the past? If there is an
independent reality "out there" (this means, independent from the
observer), how could these results be explained? In fact, they could not! At
least, with no "reasonable" explanations.

Still some scientists tried to do this.
For instance, they declared the existence of so-called
"parallel-universes" that exist at the same time and are often very
similar to our universe. In this model (founded by Hugh Everett in 1957),
according to our experiment, there are (at least) two universes: (1) where, at
the semi-transparent mirror, the twin photons are reunited and take the upper or
lower way, and (2) where they stay separated and take both ways. Thus,
both universes are supposed to have a true reality, and at the very moment we
"look" at the result of our experiment, we decide which of the two
universes we are "slipping" into (the one with the appropriate past).

But many scientists feel that it is
unscientific to invent objects (like multi-universes) ad hoc, which could never
be directly observed, only for the purpose of justifying a physical model or
explaining the results of an experiment. Another group of scientists hope one
day to find so-called "hidden variables" that will connect the
observed photons registered at the detectors with the twin photons, which are
supposed to unite "in the past" at the semi-transparent mirror. The
problem with this is that, in the whole realm of physics, there is not one
single example (up to now) of variables that can "influence" an event
in the past from the present. This too seems a very "artificial" way,
and again, it is only justified by its purpose, to explain the results of
Scully's experiments.

Another point is the
"observer-chain" mentioned earlier. The who-observes-whom problem
leads to an infinite regress. In this case, some scientists conclude that there has
to be an observer "outside" the universe, because otherwise the
problem of how a universe could exist without an observer is unsolvable. Guess
who this outside-the-universe observer could be!

Now, a critic could say that the time-span
between the semi-transparent mirror and the detectors is so short that the
influence into the past can be ignored.3

However, this is no real argument, because
in a way a "Scully-like" experiment can be stretched to cosmic
dimensions! (Actually, the following is a cosmic version of the classical
two-slit experiment.) Fortunately, there is a cosmic constellation that destroys
this argument.4

A so-called "quasar," a
pulsating light source, "hidden" behind a big galaxy is visible on
earth by "bending" its light around the galaxy, billions of light
years away (see Fig. 4). This is possible, because according to Einstein's
theory of relativity, a large mass (like a galaxy) could work as a gravitational
lens and therefore bend the light around itself. So the light of the quasar is
"doubled" by the gravitational lens, that is, one beam comes from the
right side of the galaxy to us, and the other beam comes from the other side.

Simply put, an experiment on Earth can be
made in such a way that it determines if one photon comes along either on the right
or the left side or if it comes (as a wave) along both sides
of the gravitational lens at the same time. However, how could the photons have
known billions of years ago that someday there would be an earth with
inhabitants on it, making just this experiment? Or do we "influence"
the past "out there" billions of years ago through our observations
here in the present? Hardly imaginable! In addition, let us assume that
different scientists here on Earth perform two experiments of this kind at the
same time. One experiment is arranged in such a manner that the light beams pass
both sides of the gravitational lens and the other experiment "forces"
the beams to pass either on the one side or the other. What follows? Are there
two different pasts for each observer at the same time? This is big trouble
for the multi-universe theory and for the "hidden-variables" approach.

Let it be noted that the older experiment
of Alain Aspect was similar. His purpose, however, was not to determine if an
observation could "influence" the past, but to discover if the
observation of one of the two twin photons could influence the other one through
space instantly, even at a great distance. The result was that they could, with
no time loss! But this finding contradicts Einstein's special theory of
relativity, where the speed of light is the absolute speed-barrier. While some
scientists' hope of ghostly "hidden" variables capable of instantly
transporting information from one photon to the other was understandable, the
existence of variables that can transport information back in time seems
ridiculous. So it is no wonder that these scientists now feel a certain angst
because of the possible loss of their weltbild (world view).

Some may say that quantum physics, with
all its strange results, does not matter in the macroscopic world, since all the
problems described above deal only with elementary particles. And indeed, in the
macroscopic world, we do not seem to have the problems mentioned here. But this
is not really so. First, as I stated earlier, everything in our
universe is made out of elementary particles. Secondly, quantum mechanics is not
only applicable to elementary particles, quantum mechanics can also be
accurately applied to macroscopic objects. A well-known example of strange
behavior, even in our macroscopic world, is given by "Schrödinger's
Cat."5 And furthermore, phenomena seem to exist
in the macroscopic world that are not explainable with classic physics. For
example, some physicists try to explain certain ESP phenomena with quantum
physics.6

The
assumption that our macroscopic past is not effected by the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle is not as clear as often postulated.

Others say that the conscious human is not
crucial for reality, because a photographic plate could substitute for
the observer. Of course, this is not a valid argument, because, as corresponding
experiments show, the results come into being (reality) when the photographic
plate is observed by a human being. So, this is only another example for the
already described "observer-chain," since the time-point of the
observation is only delayed to the observation of the plate.

Therefore, the assumption that our macroscopic
past is not effected by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not as clear as
often postulated. Who can say for sure what the "past" of our universe
looked like if one does not look at it, e.g., through telescopes? One
may have many similar questions, as for example: "How far is it possible to
extrapolate from Scully's quantum mechanical bench-top experiments to the
classical world of the past?" "Is such an extrapolation troubling for
sciences such as geology or astrophysics?" Because of limited space, it is
not possible to answer these questions in this paper, but much material
concerning such questions can be found in Wheeler's "Law without Law.7

So, what remains? Obviously, only the
"old" Copenhagen Interpretation, which leads to the assumption
(simplified) that the observer during his observation creates that reality.
Without an observer, there seems to be no "reasonable" reality
"out there." But what does all this have to do with the Bible?

The Bible Connection

Let us consider the creation report in
Gen.1:1-31. There we have the following events:

1.Creation
of heaven and earth, light, and day and night.

2.Creation
of land and water.

3. Creation of
plants and fruit trees.

4. Creation of stars, sun, and moon.

5. Creation of fish and birds.

6. Creation of animals and humans.

Evolutionists complain that, as stated in
the Bible, the sun and moon were created after the plants and trees,
and because of this, they say, that the creation report cannot be (literally)
true. Let us consider the following: According to the results of experiments, we
now know that reality (at least as we observe it) is a "construct" of
our interaction with it, that is, no one could really say what this reality
"looks like" without our observation. And, as we have already seen,
this even seems to be true for events that took place in a "past
reality." So, what can we really say about any events of a past
that were not observed by any human being (that is, before the existence of
humankind)? We can only say that our "reconstruction" of the past is
an image that obviously depends on our present observation of it. So the
question, "What did the past really look like?" cannot be
answered accurately as long as no observer was there.

Remember that the Scully experiment
teaches us that the past (of the electron's decision about "how" to
unite at the semi-transparent mirror) was created during its observation in the
present. But we also understand that this reconstruction of the past leads us to
more than one possibility. The past's reality "happens" while it is
being observed in the present, and the kind of observation even determines what
the past looked like. But according to the Bible, the creation of humans was the
"last" event of the creation period, so this was the first time a
conscious observer came into being. This is important to remember.

After seeing the famous movie, "Gone
With the Wind," one knows which events took place. At first, there was the
announcement of the Civil War, then there was the war with all its destruction,
meanwhile there was a love story going on, and after the war, the famous
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a … !" scene took place. But was
this really the order of the filmed sequences? Of course not! As
everybody knows the sequences were filmed in an order suitable to logistic and
organizational demands. If, for instance, a person is to appear only three times
during the whole movie, let us say at the start, in the middle, and somewhere
toward the end, then it would be easier (especially if the actor is costing the
movie company lots and lots of money!) if these scenes were filmed at one time.
Later these sequences are inserted at the proper position in the movie, even if
"years" lay in between (according to the plot).

…
our "reconstruction" of the past is an image that
obviously depends on our present observation of it.

Or let us take the TV-series, Star
Trek (the one with Kirk & Spock, etc.). After this series was on the
air, authors "constructed" a matching past to the series, and wrote,
e.g., about Spock's youth. So, in the present, a possible,
"reasonable" past was created for Spock, which led to the
"reality" of the stories of the series in a logical way. This
reconstruction could be called an "extrapolation" from the present
into the past. However, there could be more than one possibility for Spock's
past which matches the TV-series! But remember, in reality (in the
series), there was no "past" of Spock at all. Furthermore,
Spock "exists" only if someone looks at one or more of the Star
Trek series or movies. Thus, Spock exists only by observation, not in
reality! And as we know from the movie, The Truman Show, even the
reality of a "real" person can be a total fallacy.

Now, what do scientists do, when they are
talking about a past where boldly no human has gone before? They are talking
about an extrapolation of the present (of humankind) with three possibilities:

1. The extrapolated past could have really
happened this way.

2. Another "reasonable" past
could have happened.

3. There was no real past at all
(at least no kind of past that we can imagine or talk about).

According to the results of Scully's
experiments, only the third interpretation seems to make sense! But even the
scientists, who believe in the "many-world hypothesis" must agree that
there could be an infinite number of past "realities" that may lead to
the same present world (depending upon our observation of it).

So, what remains? Obviously, only a
"movie" we call reality, and an extrapolation postulated by some
scientists of one of many possible pasts which may (or may not) match our
present observation of this reality.

The Bible says:

"He [God] has made everything
suitable for its time; moreover he has put a sense of past and future into their
minds, yet they cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the
end" --Eccles. 3:11 (NRSV).

Now consider that the Bible is talking of
a sense of past (and future), and God has put it into our minds.
As the Scully experiments seem to tell us, we are not able to find out
what God has really done, that is, know how the universe really
"works" (at least with physics). Does the reality of our past exist only
in our minds? Since CNN was not there with their camera teams, we can only
produce a mathematical calculation of this past. Here is another example from
the Bible that shows us how we possibly may have to deal with the experimental
results.

"Thou shalt not make unto thee
any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or
that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: Thou
shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am]
a jealous God …" --Exod.
20:4, 5 (KJV).

The
"graven image" [Exod. 20:4] could
also be the model a scientist makes of the universe.

According to the newest results, these
verses now may stand in a brand-new light. The "graven image" could
also be the model a scientist makes of the universe. Perhaps the Bible foresees
the impossibility to complete the chain of logical conclusions within our weltbild
based on such graven images. Obviously, severe contradictions arise if
traditional reasoning is applied to the newest results of quantum physical
experiments, like the ones done by Scully. This fits perfectly with the
following Bible verses in an amazing way:

"Every man is brutish in [his]
knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image
[is] falsehood, and [there is] no breath in them. They [are] vanity, [and] the
work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish"
--Jer. 10:14, 15 (KJV).

One
could quite provocatively say that the classical image of the universe,
constructed by the "founders" called scientists,
breaks down. It seems to be a "work of error."

One could quite provocatively say that the
classical image of the universe, constructed by the "founders" called
scientists, breaks down. It seems to be a "work of error." What is now
happening to a lot of scientists can be expressed perfectly through another
verse from the Bible:

"They shall be turned back and
utterly put to shame-- those who trust in carved images, who say to cast images,
'You are our gods'" --Isa.
42:17 (NRSV).

The "god" of solid,
deterministic reality, describable by physics and understandable by reasoning
and "common sense," may very well have to be sacrificed. As in the
above verse, our knowledge turns out to be foolish. This development may also be
foreseen in the book of Isaiah:

"Thus says the LORD, your
Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who makes
all things, who stretches out the heavens all alone, who spreads abroad the
earth by Myself; Who frustrates the signs of the babblers, and drives diviners
mad; Who turns wise men backward, and makes their knowledge foolishness"
--Isa. 44:24, 25 (NKJV).

Last, but not least, "the making of
their knowledge foolishness" is prophesied for the End Times and
astonishingly matches these verses in the Bible:

"But know this, that in the last
days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of
money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of
good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of
God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn
away!

"For of this sort are those who
creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins,
led away by various lusts, always
learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes
and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt
minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progress no further, for
their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was"

--2 Tim. 3:1-9 (NKJV, emphasis mine).

Another Anthropic Principle?

For a moment, let us put aside the problem
of the reality of the past without an observer and turn instead to
classical physical views.

It has only been a few years since
physicists found out that the values of our nature constants are crucial for our
existence.8

If, during the Big Bang, some values would
only differ by 0.000000000001%, the resulting universe could never yield any
biological life. Even conservative mathematical estimations show that the
probability for the existence of a life-bearing universe is at least 1:10229.9

If one holds to the position that the
universe came into existence without a Creator, who deliberately
"fine-tuned" these nature constants in such a way that biological life
could appear, then this is a position where one is betting against the most
unlikely and the most highly and extreme odds. Furthermore, if one estimates the
possibility for some kind of life form to appear within the universe, then--
corresponding to the evolution theories--the probability that an intelligent
life form will appear (we assume humans are intelligent) is much worse (over 400
zeros after the "1" of the denominator). Thus, it is quite clear that
scientists ask the question, "Why do we observe these special values of the
nature constants?"

Now, the usual anthropic principle says
(simplified) that the universe evolves (deliberately) in such a way that sooner
or later an intelligent life form will arise who will "appreciate" it,
that is, who could observe it and try to understand it. This is a kind of
pantheistic world view (pantheism says that God is identified with the
universe and its phenomena, and is bound by the laws of nature). There are
different variations of this principle, like WAP (weak anthropic principle), SAP
(strong anthropic principle), PAP (participatory anthropic principle), and FAP
(final anthropic principle).

These views, however, do not help us
understand the results of Scully's experiments. So I will try to formulate an
anthropic principle of another kind. But I surely do not want to add another
CRAP (completely ridiculous anthropic principle). Therefore, to distinguish my
position from all the pantheistic versions of the usual anthropic principle, I
would like to call it the "Divine Anthropic Principle" (DAP).

Physical
reality is no longer a thing "out there," it is something that needs
two things:
an observer and an observable object.

We surely can say that we exist ("I
think, therefore I am"). What the "we" is, is not evidently clear
(consider the infinite regress mentioned earlier). But as we now know, this
"we" is responsible for the outcome of our reality (the "we"
decides how our experiments are chosen and, therefore, what reality "looks
like"). Thus, our reality is, in a sense, "created" by our
observation. The past could only be defined through our remembrance. Therefore,
past is what we remember. The question, whether our remembrance is
"true" or "real," is meaningless. Let us call this
remembrance (or past) our "path" or "way" as the Bible calls
it. This path appears rather subjective. None of our paths are identical. Even
two "different" pasts can occur (see the description of the
cosmological analogy of the Scully experiment). There is no "unique"
past, the past depends on the observer. Therefore, scientifically speaking, no
special past has more reality than any other, so the "real"
past simply does not exist (in this physical sense). Furthermore, and this is
the intrinsic message, there is no "real" past at all, if there
are no observers (see also the PAP).

To make one thing clear: "There is no
real past …" does not absolutely exclude any past at all, but it
should be understood in relation to a (human) observer. Physical reality is no
longer a thing "out there," it is something that needs two
things: an observer and an observable object. Thus, once again, physical
reality is what mathematicians call a "relation." Without an observer,
we simply cannot say anything (in a physical, that is, "real"
way) about any past. This is what we call "no real past." And
this leads us to the "divine" part of this Divine Anthropic Principle.

Again, "past reality" is
subsequently created by an (intelligent?) observer; this means created by that
which we named our "we" in the above statements. So, who can tell us
what the universe really looked like before the creation of the first
conscious human beings according to the Genesis report (see day 6)?

As we find in Genesis 1, it took six days
to create the universe, including the earth and human beings. Thus, the first
five days are beyond human observation. So according to the former
considerations, these five days are a kind of past that we would not
regard as "real" in our physical definition. But, as I mentioned, this
certainly does not mean that this past did not take place. As we have seen, the
word "real" (in physics) only makes sense in relation to a human
observer. The "reality" of God is surely something totally different
and completely incomprehensible, and it is even unimaginable for us. But there
is no reason whatsoever to doubt the description given in the Bible concerning
the creation account of the universe. Since God cannot lie (Tit. 1:2), we must
assume that the Genesis report is true. So now we can distinguish between the
kind of past that has a "reality" (since the sixth day) and the
"other" past that occurred during days 1 through 5. This
"other" past is just as true as the past after the sixth day, but it
is a "divine" past, "unreachable" through our physical
reality. Furthermore, quantum physics not only supports this view, it also
supports the possibility for God to act within our reality.

The
word "real" (in physics) only makes sense in relation to a human
observer.

The Bible says:

"Now therefore, stand still, that
I may reason with you before the LORD concerning all the righteous acts of the
LORD which He did to you and your fathers"--1
Sam. 12:7 (NKJV).

According to quantum physics, God is also
able to interact effectively with our (observable) reality. As John Polkinghorne
stated in his book, Belief in God in an Age of Science:10

the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
offers almost infinite possibilities for God to interact on a subatomic level
with tremendous results on our physical reality in the macroscopic world.

Furthermore, here is another point which
agrees with Genesis: God provided Adam with a free will. But according to
classical physics, especially according to Newton's mechanics, there is no room
for a free will, since the universe was "only" seen as a kind of
clockwork, and God's position in it was restricted to the winding up of the
clock, and then the clock was "left to itself."

We
can distinguish between the kind of past that has a "reality" (since
the sixth day [of creation]) and the "other" past that occurred during
days 1 through 5. This "other" past is just as true as the past after
the sixth day, but it is a "divine" past, "unreachable"
through our physical reality.

Now, with quantum physics, God can
interact with reality through the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and he can
also enable human beings to make "true" decisions. These decisions are
not determined in advance by the current state of the universe. So the old
dilemma of living in a calculable universe and having a free will is also solved
(although God is, of course, omniscient concerning all events that occur in the
universe).

We have seen that, even from a scientific
viewpoint alone, Genesis 1 is just as good as any other possible
"path" for our past beyond humankind. And, according to classical
physics, there still remains the highly improbable and unlikely absurd ratio
that seems to lead rational and logical thinkers to a "deliberately"
fine-tuned universe. But when Genesis 1 is seen in the new light of the Divine
Anthropic Principle along with the improbable appearance of conscious human
beings, this makes Genesis the most likely "past" for the search for
truth that is supported by actual physical observations and laws.

For God said:

"Trust in the LORD with all thine
heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge
him, and he shall direct thy paths"--Prov.
3:5, 6 (KJV).

"The LORD by wisdom hath founded
the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens"--Prov.
3:19 (KJV).

"Jesus said to him, 'You shall
love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all
your mind'" --Matt. 22:37 (KJV).